Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Eyes with Intraocular Inflammation after Brolucizumab: Post Hoc Analysis of HAWK and HARRIER.

PURPOSE: This analysis of the pivotal phase 3 HAWK and HARRIER trials aimed to provide insights on the timing of presentation, management, and outcomes of intraocular inflammation (IOI)-related adverse events (AEs), as reported by investigators in these trials. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of investigator-reported IOI-related AEs in HAWK and HARRIER. PARTICIPANTS: Of 1088 brolucizumab-treated eyes (3 or 6 mg), 49 eyes demonstrated at least 1 IOI-related AE and were included in this analysis. METHODS: Reports of IOI-related AEs were analyzed and descriptive statistics were provided for outcome measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence and description of eyes with IOI-related AEs, timing of presentation, management, clinical outcomes, and brolucizumab treatment after the first IOI-related AE. RESULTS: Seventy IOI-related AEs were reported in 49 eyes. Before the onset of first IOI-related AE, eyes received a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 3.9 ± 2.2 brolucizumab injections. Median time to first IOI-related AE from the last administered brolucizumab injection was 18.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0-29.0 days). Of the 70 AEs, 61 (87.1%) were treated, most with topical corticosteroids; systemic and intraocular corticosteroids were used for 3 AEs each. Overall, inflammation resolved completely in 39 eyes (79.6%), resolved with sequelae in 5 eyes (10.2%), and did not resolve in 5 eyes (10.2%) by end-of-study (EOS). Overall, the mean ± SD best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from baseline to EOS, before AE to the lowest BCVA in 3 months after AE, and from before AE to EOS were -0.84 ± 20.6 , -16.31 ± 17.6, and -0.22 ± 18.9 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, respectively. Of the 36 eyes (73.5%) that continued with brolucizumab therapy after the first IOI-related AE, 24 completed the trials and 12 discontinued; mean ± SD BCVA change in these eyes was 2.6 ± 17.6, 7.8 ± 13.2, and -7.7 ± 21.3 ETDRS letters, respectively, from baseline to EOS. The remaining 13 eyes (26.5%) were not treated with brolucizumab after first IOI-related AE and showed a mean ± SD BCVA change of -10.4 ± 25.5 ETDRS letters from baseline to EOS. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this analysis highlight the need for continued vigilance and monitoring for any signs of IOI-related events in patients receiving brolucizumab.

Expert Opinion on Management of Intraocular Inflammation, Retinal Vasculitis, and Vascular Occlusion after Brolucizumab Treatment.

PURPOSE: Recent reports have described a spectrum of uncommon findings of intraocular inflammation (IOI), retinal vasculitis, or retinal vascular occlusion in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with intravitreal injection (IVI) of brolucizumab. We present guidance on the clinical presentation of this spectrum and propose recommendations for management of these events. DESIGN: PubMed literature review and expert opinion panel. PARTICIPANTS: A working group of international medical experts and Novartis medical personnel. METHODS: The working group deliberated on the clinical presentations and used a 3-pronged approach to develop management recommendations based on (1) critical appraisal of scientific literature; (2) clinical insights from the HAWK and HARRIER trials, postmarketing reports, and assessments from an independent Safety Review Committee (SRC); and (3) their clinical experience. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Management recommendations for a spectrum of ocular inflammatory events after treatment with brolucizumab or other anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs). RESULTS: Based on insights gained from the available information and the expertise of the contributors, recommendations were proposed for ocular examinations, imaging modalities, and treatment strategies for management of this spectrum of events. Patients should be educated to promptly report any relevant or persistent symptoms after IVI to facilitate timely intervention. Patients diagnosed with IOI should be evaluated for concomitant retinal vasculitis or retinal vascular occlusive events. Clinical examination can be augmented with multimodal imaging techniques, including widefield imaging, fluorescein angiography (with peripheral sweeps), and OCT. Once confirmed, the ongoing brolucizumab treatment should be suspended and intensive treatment with potent corticosteroids (topical, subtenon, intravitreal, or systemic) is recommended, which may be supplemented with other treatment strategies depending on the severity. Based on the clinical outcome of these events, individualized treatment with locally available standard of care should be considered for the underlying nAMD. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations emphasize the need for early diagnosis, prompt and timely intervention, intensive treatment, and frequent monitoring to minimize the risk of progression of these events. The proposed recommendations may facilitate a consistent management approach of this spectrum of ocular inflammatory events should they arise in nAMD after treatment with brolucizumab or other anti-VEGFs.

Use of a flowable haemostat versus an oxidised regenerated cellulose agent in primary elective cardiac surgery: economic impact from a UK healthcare perspective.

BACKGROUND: Flowable haemostatic agents have been shown to be superior to non-flowable agents in terms of haemostatic control and need for transfusion products in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We investigated the economic impact of the use of a flowable haemostatic agent (Floseal) compared with non-flowable oxidised regenerated cellulose (ORC) agent in primary elective cardiac surgery from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A cost-consequence framework based upon clinical data from a prospective trial and an observational trial and NHS-specific actual reference costs (2016) was developed to compare the economic impact of Floseal with that of ORC. The individual domains of care investigated comprised complications (major and minor) avoided, operating room time savings, surgical revisions for bleeding avoided and transfusions avoided. The cost impact of Floseal versus ORC on ICU days and extended bed days avoided was modelled separately. RESULTS: Compared with ORC, the use of Floseal would be associated with overall net savings to the NHS of £178,283 per 100 cardiac surgery patients who experience intraoperative bleeding requiring haemostatic therapy. Cost savings were apparent in all individual domains of care (complications avoided: £83,536; operating room time saved: £63,969; surgical revisions avoided: £34,038; and blood transfusions avoided: £22,317). Cost savings per 100 patients with Floseal over ORC in terms of ICU days avoided (n = 30) and extended bed days avoided (n = 51.7) were £57,960 and £21,965, respectively. A sensitivity analysis indicated that these findings remained robust when the model parameters representing the clinical benefit of Floseal over ORC were reduced by up to 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher initial acquisition costs, the use of flowable haemostatic agents achieves substantial cost savings over non-flowable agents in cardiac surgery. These cost savings commence during the operating theatre and appear to continue to be realised throughout the postoperative period.